multi-entry-tourn.bankroll management

This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by ronekinky: 27.01.2011 23:11.

Weeks went by without ANY success in the tournaments. Running so horrible. But now i suddenly reach two consecutive final tables in full tilts 1$ rebuy with 10k playerfields. So sick. Anyway, this obviously boosted my bankroll so i started thinking about bankroll and where i should be playing now. I read the MTT bankroll management article here on pokerstrategy and it said 100 buy ins. I guess thats minimum?

Considering how horribly i ran for weeks i think i want to have a 300 buy in rule. Or is that just too careful and gay? I also think maby that BRM article might be a bit outdated? Are not the fields tougher today making the variance higher? What do you suggest...

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by ronekinky: 27.01.2011 22:36.

By the way, how does Full Tilts new multi entry feature affect my bankroll management decision? If i 4 table one mtt i can only reach 1 final table.. compared to a possible 4 finaltables otherwise. (yeah highly likely i know)

Originally posted by Lindberg789
can't see the advantage in entering multiple times.. maybe in super soft tourneys..

Volume?

But do i need more conservative BRM if i 4 table one multi entry tourney?

Say i have 2 tables left in the same MTT and reach the final table. I get the prize money for 10th place and have the two stacks merged together. Is this +or-EV compared to instead playing 2 final tables?

According to the ICM, the other players benefit if two collide and the shorter stack gets knocked out. That's essentially what happens when two stacks are combined, and if all of the other players benefit, that means the player whose stacks are combined loses equity.

The bankroll you need to play a large multi-entry tournament is not greatly affected by the chance to reach the final table twice. Nor is your equity greatly decreased. The chance to reach the final table twice is just too low for it to make a difference.

I am concerned that many players pass around their favorite numbers of buy-ins to have in a bankroll without justification. This is not safe or accurate. Most players don't play enough MTTs to see how brutal the natural swings are. A player with the skills to have a 50% ROI who starts off with a 100 buy-in downswing will probably not think he is a winning player, and may move on to another form of poker without giving bankroll advice. So, you need to check more than anecdotal evidence if you want to see how bad the swings can be. Here are a few relevant facts:

-- The downswings you see depend on your win rate, and no one can tell you what your win rate is, you have to figure that out. You should not expect the same number of buy-ins to make a marginal winner safe as to make an expert safe, and you will burn through any amount eventually if you are a losing player. Asking, "What bankroll do I need?" is close to asking, "What is my win rate?"

-- The downswings you will have also depend on your mathematical variance, which depends on the size of the field. You will have longer streaks where you don't make the final table if you play in larger tournaments. You should not expect the same number of buy-ins to apply if you play 45-player tournaments as if you play tournaments with 10,000 entries.

-- Expert low stakes MTT players tend to need more buy-ins than expert low stakes STT players, who tend to need more buy-ins than cash game players. It's simply easier to lose a MTT buy-in than a cash game buy-in. However, because these are all called buy-ins, people pass on figures they heard from cash game players, or from SNG players, and that is just wrong. The achievable ROI in MTTs is greater than in STTs, but the variance grows faster.

-- Some people say you should have 100 buy-ins for MTTs, but if that money is really your bankroll not your balance, if it is a disaster rather than an inconvenience if you lose it all, then the math says you should require much more. Check the graphs of players who grind 180 player SNGs who are on the tops of the Sharkscope leader boards (say for total profit 2010). These players are much better than typical players, and they regularly have 50+ buy-in downswings every 1000 tournaments despite having nice ROIs. They have occasional 150 buy-in downswings. If you have a 50% ROI, it is normal to break even or lose in all tournaments you don't win, and to lose big in the tournaments where you don't make the top 3. Of course, you could stay afloat in the short run from occasional large scores, or even a streak of minimum cashes, but you rely on big wins to have any profit in the long run.

This post has been edited 3 time(s), it was last edited by ronekinky: 28.01.2011 23:16.

Lindberg789

You said: "can't see the advantage in entering multiple times"
But say there is a tournament in particular thats juicy, like a 5$ superstack with slow blindstructure and very weak players, surely its more +EV to multi-entry 4 table that tournament compared to just playing it one table?

"Your volume isn't bigger when entering multiple times"

When i said "volume" i meant the number of tourneys i play. Volume being bigger when i multi-entry..right? (4 tables, same mtt) I meant the advantage come from being able to play more tourneys.

pzhon

Thank you, great info!

You said: "the other players benefit if two collide and the shorter stack gets knocked out. That's essentially what happens when two stacks are combined, and if all of the other players benefit, that means the player whose stacks are combined loses equity."
But about the equity, are calculations added that when my stacks are merged i therefor get a better chance at a top 3 finish where the biggest money is?

and"I am concerned that many players pass around their favorite numbers of buy-ins to have in a bankroll without justification. This is not safe"
What exactly do you mean by "its not safe"?

Originally posted by ronekinky
You said: "the other players benefit if two collide and the shorter stack gets knocked out. That's essentially what happens when two stacks are combined, and if all of the other players benefit, that means the player whose stacks are combined loses equity."
But about the equity, are calculations added that when my stacks are merged i therefor get a better chance at a top 3 finish where the biggest money is?

According to the ICM, the total chance of winning the tournament stays the same, but the total chance to place second and the total chance to place third decrease when you combine the stacks. It is possible that the ICM is wrong, of course, but I have won so much using the ICM that I would need a compelling argument to reject it.

"I am concerned that many players pass around their favorite numbers of buy-ins to have in a bankroll without justification. This is not safe [or accurate]"
What exactly do you mean by "its not safe"?

By not safe, I mean that using someone else's favorite number of buy-ins may give you a large instantaneous risk of ruin. Most MTT players have small samples, so even something which has worked so far for other people may not be safe for them or for you. Since you are a different player, you might require a larger bankroll to have an acceptably low risk of ruin.

By not accurate, I mean that players also sometimes pass on overly conservative recommendations with no context. This discourages people from playing or moving up, and if they disregard those bad guidelines and nothing happens, they assume bankroll management isn't really important or is all about psychology, rather than something which is necessary to handle normal swings.

It is quite convenient to be able to enter several tournaments which start at the same time. However, I think the fields will tend to be tougher than normal because the multi-entry feature will appeal more to sharks than the casual players. Also, players who have entered multiple times may not feel the minimum cashes are so valuable, since they will still be behind after entering 4 times and then making a minimum cash. (Actually, I haven't checked the prize structures to make sure that the minimum cashes are small. If I were to set the prize structure, I would make the minimum cash larger, but I would be surprised if that was done.) So, you might not be able to vacuum up as many chips on the bubble as you can in other tournaments.

Incidentally, entering 4 times is much closer to playing 4 different tournaments for bankroll considerations than it is to entering one tournament for 4 times as much. If you have the bankroll to enter 1 time, you can enter 4 times.

So basically the differance should not be that huge. Personally im not going to worry about the quality of the players. Its micro stakes after all.(max 11$ buy-ins) The player quality gap should be pretty marginal.

Originally posted by pzhon
It is quite convenient to be able to enter several tournaments which start at the same time. However, I think the fields will tend to be tougher than normal because the multi-entry feature will appeal more to sharks than the casual players. Also, players who have entered multiple times may not feel the minimum cashes are so valuable, since they will still be behind after entering 4 times and then making a minimum cash. (Actually, I haven't checked the prize structures to make sure that the minimum cashes are small. If I were to set the prize structure, I would make the minimum cash larger, but I would be surprised if that was done.) So, you might not be able to vacuum up as many chips on the bubble as you can in other tournaments.

Incidentally, entering 4 times is much closer to playing 4 different tournaments for bankroll considerations than it is to entering one tournament for 4 times as much. If you have the bankroll to enter 1 time, you can enter 4 times.

FT has 2x guarantied week and min cash was 2x-2,5x buy in imo

What do you think is best strategy of No of entries, max 4 times or less?
I think 2 times is best

I don't see why entering twice would be optimal. If I played, I would enter the maximum number of times. The 4th entry is worth slightly less than the first, but only by a tiny amount if you are used to multitabling.

I wouldn't discount that the fields will be tougher. One of the main reasons MTTs are still quite profitable is that it is harder for the winning players who can multitable to fill them up. You can see some STTs with 6 regs registered, hoping that 3 fish will sign up so they can eke out an ROI under 10% each. If entering the maximum number of times appeals more to winning players than to casual players, then the proportion of winning players will be higher in these tournaments, which means the winning players will have significantly lower ROIs on average than in other tournaments. Of course, no one will have the sample size to demonstrate that from the results alone for a long time, but see if the average blind defense rate in early levels is much lower than normal.

Originally posted by Lindberg789
Remember to use average BI rules... so if your average is 5$ you need 1500$ role..

For rebuys, treat them as BI*5 tourneys - so a 1 dollar is a 5 dollar.

+1 but would use 200bi average

as for rebuy , always take add-on + allow three rebuys , some of the rebuy tourneys on pokerstars have unlimited rebuys with no limit so some are creating huge stack by just rebuying so check those tourenys & rules which apply

Originally posted by pzhon
I don't see why entering twice would be optimal. If I played, I would enter the maximum number of times. The 4th entry is worth slightly less than the first, but only by a tiny amount if you are used to multitabling.

+1

I have been entering $3 Rush Rebuys 4 times - with immediate re-buy and add-on each entry is $9.30 - small sample, but so far the fields have been very soft and playing ABC poker it is pretty easy to reach the add-on period with minimum of 10k chips on 3 out of 4 tables (blinds 240/120, starting chips 1500).

ITM has been roughly top 10% and roughly 2 x total entry fee ($20). For bank-roll management purposes I treat each buy-in as a separate entry (Bankroll 4k+).

IMHO, with fields of 2000+ the chance of making FT with 2 entries is so negligible that a discussion about losing equity when combining stacks is pointless.

I wouldn't discount that the fields will be tougher. One of the main reasons MTTs are still quite profitable is that it is harder for the winning players who can multitable to fill them up. You can see some STTs with 6 regs registered, hoping that 3 fish will sign up so they can eke out an ROI under 10% each. If entering the maximum number of times appeals more to winning players than to casual players, then the proportion of winning players will be higher in these tournaments, which means the winning players will have significantly lower ROIs on average than in other tournaments.

Of course, no one will have the sample size to demonstrate that from the results alone for a long time, but see if the average blind defense rate in early levels is much lower than normal.